“Targeted” is far too vague a term. The police target minorities in 2021 more than they do whites, but that is not genocide.
Are you completely incapable of rational thought?!
I already pointed out that that is not the reason why I pointed how insulting you where there. If someone had said that the police targeting was a genocide I would had complained about it, but as bad faith is your forte, you had to just ignore why I complained about your ignorance there. I was indeed talking about how prevalent (and I cited it too) it was to sterilize minorities back in the 70s.
Your reply to the other poster was ignorant besides being insulting.
Genocide has a specific, articulable definition. This thread is about what scenarios that definition covers and what it does not. Grounded with specificity, a rational conversation can be had.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to discuss, but it has nothing to do with the definition of genocide, but appears to be about arguing minutiae about “bad things that have happened in the past to some ethnic minorities, and the degree to which we agree or disagree on how bad they were.” To me that feels like a pretty mushy, useless fucking discussion with no merit whatsoever, which is why I very specifically said I wasn’t interested in it.
How a poster like you is so gullible regarding disinformation, and then still tries to ignore one important item related to this issue. It only shows to others how unreliable a poster is, regarding how he deals with information that was presented. The way you handled it here also shows that you do depend on keeping a lot of ignorance to continue to pretend knowledge in an issue like this one.
Bottom line: do you have a cite showing that there was the same proportion of minorities and white people being sterilized because of mental issues?
Lots of people were sterilized, I do not know what proportion in each community was sterilized for “Mental health” issues, nor do I know how reliable such diagnoses or data would be as much of the sterilization push was individual doctor driven.
What I do know is that doctors behaving in a disparate way between patients of different ethnicities is not genocide.
So yeah, you don’t know the numbers and yet you had to reply in an ignorant and condescending way to the other poster.
And this is the third time I have to tell that the definition of genocide was not the reason why I complained. You are just keeping your insulting ignorance here.
Although an issue like forced sterilization is also involved when trying to identify genocide.
One aspect of genocide
Forced sterilizations are an aspect of genocide. Most people think of genocide as the mass, deliberate murder of large numbers of people. But when the United Nations passed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948, it defined five ways genocide could be committed.
Only one of the five means defined in the Genocide Convention is mass murder. The others are: “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;” “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;” “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;” and “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Forced sterilization prevents births.
The “Sixties Scoop” removed thousands of Indigenous children from their families and communities in the 1960s. The reason given was to protect the children from abusive situations, but this could be considered an example of forcibly transferring children from one group to another.
Of course, that also points to your dismal ignorance again; so not my problem, but yours.
My opinion is that they’re a myth, invented by racists. I’ve dealt with that race-baiting here shit many times before. Not going to say any more than that about it, because that’s all that pathetic tu quoque deserves.
What the fuck does Zimbabwe have to do with me?
That’s got to be an internet rule that any discussion of race will eventually contain a white person pointing to Zimbabwe, no matter how unrelated.
I mean upthread you acknowledge the U.S. sterilization practice that was prominent from early 1900s to around 1978 when certain Federal laws and guidelines were changed to significantly curtail it, did not constitute genocide. Now are you suggesting it is genocide because the % at which it was used was higher for some ethnicities than others? You don’t seem to have a consistent point here.
If you actually believe it is genocide, that is something to discuss–I disagree. Given the following UN guidance on genocide, I do not believe the U.S. sterilization program would fit the definition:
Various U.S. States had eugenics boards, poor people were sterilized frequently, including whites. People deemed mentally unfit were also targeted. To my knowledge there has never been any comprehensive, systemic intent in these programs to destroy minority groups. That is an important element in genocide. Without it we’re just back to “bad things done to minorities.” If the systemic element is not there, then literally all hate crimes are individualized acts of genocide. For example the horrific murder of James Byrd would be considered “genocide” under that standard. The police murder of George Floyd would be considered “genocide” under that standard would simply merge the definition of “genocide” and “hate crime” and in a sense “Destroy” the concept of genocide as a national crime, committed by a state against another nation or ethnic group.
Disparate outcomes in programs that are not designed inherently with a genocidal (i.e. destruction of a specific ethnic group) intent, are not genocide. Police departments are not constituted for genocide, they are constituted to enforce law and order. Thus disparate racial treatment in the application of law enforcement is not genocide, it is just racist practice–which is bad, but it isn’t genocide.
Ahh, almost like you’re saying “not all bad things that happen are genocide.” Interesting you can only apply that logic within the borders of your own country.
I dunno, you’re sharing your stupid and unwelcome opinions on my country and Canada, so obviously national borders don’t govern what you feel that you are an expert on.
Well, I’m here, and Africa is a country, didn’t you know?
It can not be ignored, you pointed at the definition when it was not my point, so I have to say then that my point stands. You do rely on ignorance to reply on this issue. And yeah, it is not about the definition, but as I pointed it is an aspect of genocide that it can not be ignored, no matter how much you tell yourself it should be ignored.
What it can be safely ignored then is your ignorant twisting opinion.
You are a lying racist and/or Nazi enabler.
I also will note based on the rates of sexual violence in South Africa you are more likely than the average board member to be a rapist.
“A thread about the definition of genocide isn’t about the definition of genocide.”
Probably time to go lay down and/or take your meds grandpa, you’ve lost the thread.
I can already imagine the shrieking and racist allegations against me from this, so I will note this is based on the following data set:
Countries Compared by Crime > Rape rate. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
I am not saying MrDibble is a rapist, I am saying he is a racist and a Nazi enabler. I am also concurrently saying that due to the rape epidemic in South Africa, he is statistically more likely than the average board member to be a rapist.
Tell me, Martin, do these men of straw actually speak to you?
Well, if you’d only stop all that genociding, I wouldn’t have to.
I know quite a bit about Zimbabwe. But it’s irrelevant to this thread.
“stupid and unwelcome” to a racist pig like you is not exactly a discouragement, you know.
Aah, I guess I got the tone right, since you clearly recognized yourself in that bit of parody…
No more likely than you are to be a sister-fucker, I guess.
But naah, I only know rape from the other side, mate.
You’ve been harvesting fields of strawmen you’ve deployed against me for this entire thread, so the pure irony of this response is high comedy.
Do you remember about you not being capable of having rational thoughts? You really do think that others will just ignore that I was not referring to definitions when I was talking about your stupid and insulting way that you pretended to know why we could dismiss the forced sterilizations of minorities? It was an ignorant bit to declare that it can be dismissed because whites were also targeted if they had mental issues. The point that stands still is that you are an insulting ignorant for replying that way.
And as for the definition, it is you the one that shows to all that you lost it, I found evidence that shows that you were also an ignorant about declaring forced sterilizations as not being included as an item to identify genocide.
Now your dig here only demonstrates you as being disingenuous. It is really stupid to invent a limit on a discussion, I can discuss your ignorant insulting ways about how you reply to a native American, while at the same time I can then come into the original discussion showing how you are are an ignoramus also about the main issue.
-
You keep insisting it isn’t about definitions. I literally told you after your first post–this thread is about the definition of genocide. I do not care about your opinions on other shit, you can start another thread if you want to talk about an entirely different topic, and maybe I’ll care about this topic. But this thread is about the definition of genocide, if you are proffering something that has nothing to do with that, as I said–I am not interested.
-
No one ever said that forced sterilizations cannot be genocide. Killing can also be genocide. Is all killing genocide? No, it is not. Is all forced sterilization genocide? No, it is not.
-
“Invent a limit on discussion” is called a thread topic. You may not know where you are–you’re on a message board, threads have topics. I didn’t start this thread FWIW, I’m just choosing to respect the topic.